Facebook designates Grayzone journalist Kit Klarenberg a ‘dangerous individual’

The notoriously intelligence-friendly social media network appears to have imposed a ban on posting a recent report by Kit Klarenberg, and is automatically restricting users who re-publish his work.

Multiple Facebook users have reported being banned, or having their posts censored, after sharing an investigation by The Grayzone’s Kit Klarenberg into CIA and MI6 involvement in the creation of ISIS. Readers who post links to the piece on the social network find themselves frozen out of their accounts, on the apparent grounds that Facebook has classified Klarenberg as a “dangerous individual.”

“I just shared this article from @Kit Klarenberg on Facebook and the post was immediately deleted,” wrote Ricky Hale, the founder of popular independent left-wing outlet Council Estate Media.

In a Substack article published April 5, Hale wrote that “the page was hit with restrictions and I was told I had shared a post from a dangerous individual or organisation.”

Hale was only able to regain control of his Facebook page, which boasts over 44,000 fans, by removing administrative privileges from the user who shared it — which happens to be himself.

Other restrictions imposed due to sharing Klarenberg’s work have not been lifted, and may well never be. Hale says he has been blocked from changing the page’s name, inviting people to join the page, or creating new Facebook groups. “Given Facebook had already reduced my page’s visibility for another absurd violation, I’m assuming my posts are going to be invisible,” Hale lamented. “This means a Facebook page with 44,000 users has been rendered useless because of state censorship that’s been outsourced to big tech. This is not how a free society operates.”

It was not the first time that Facebook censored one of its users for posting Klarenberg’s article. Hours beforehand, another social media user revealed the piece had been removed from her Facebook timeline mere “seconds” after it was posted.

Keep reading

Intel Community Warns Of “Possible Threats To Public Gatherings” Across US

In early March, FBI Director Chris Wray warned a Senate panel that dangerous individuals had entered the United States illegally at the southern border.

“We have had dangerous individuals entering the United States have a variety of sources,” Wray said at the annual “Worldwide Threats” congressional hearings. 

Fast forward to Friday, an ABC News report citing a US intelligence bulletin warns that “radicals in the US might respond to ISIS calls for similar attacks in the wake of last month’s deadly terrorist attack at a concert hall in Moscow.” 

The bulletin said “lone wolves” might be compelled to attack public venues following the attack at a popular concert hall complex near Moscow last month. It warned that individuals who are not members of ISIS could also unleash attacks. 

Given this new warning, and what has the national intelligence community up at night, is President Biden and Democrat’s disastrous open southern borders that flooded the nation with millions of unvetted migrants – some of whom are military-aged men from countries that deeply hate America. 

Keep reading

Uncomfortable Truth: The US Is The World’s Most Prolific Sponsor Of Terrorism

Upon reading the title of this article many might reflexively click off, going straight to the comments section to voice their disapproval, to vitriolically chastise the perceived lack of patriotism and the insinuation that the United States of America is anything but the greatest bastion of freedom and liberty in the world. A beacon of light in the dark protecting democracy from the dregs of despotism.

It is a reaction that has been programmed into many of us, one that even among the “liberty community” many, including yours truly, espoused at one time or another. Since birth we are programmed via nationalistic propaganda to have such a worldview.

Every single day of our schooling for at least 12 years we are indoctrinated to place our hands over our hearts and pledge our allegiance to the nation, in other words our loyalty to the government, or more specifically — given the origins of the pledge itself — the ideologies of colonialism in honoring Christopher Columbus, Anglo-American ethno-nationalism, and later, a reinforcement of US political and religious moral superiority, that is itself inherent to the government and its systemic norms.

Denoting these sentiments under a negative connotation will as well likely spark the ire of many who still refuse to acknowledge the role of settler-colonialism in the American experiment, but we digress.

The point is, we as Americans have been institutionally inculcated our entire lives with sentiments of nationalism and American exceptionalism which have subsequently, with assistance in no small part from the heavily controlled corporate mainstream media and the centralized education system, blinded huge swaths of the population from the realities of the innumerable crimes committed by the American government. Both in the past, and the present day.

Chief among these misbehaviors would be the ways in which America would behave itself with regard to it’s foreign policy, both early in its existence as a burgeoning superpower and today as the leader of a globe spanning unipolar hegemon.

Beginning with the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 wherein the US asserted itself as being the sole authority in the entirety of the Western Hemisphere, It would slowly go on to refine this doctrine as justification for intervention and expansionism, first in Latin America and expanding outward to the rest of the world.

As the US would continue to expand its power and influence over its global neighbors the destabilization of sovereign governments that Washington viewed as being at odds or potentially deleterious to its agendas of regional control became standard procedure.

We recently elaborated upon this briefly with regard to the century of US intervention in Haiti and the long history of US backed regime change.

Keep reading

Mayorkas Pressed to Explain Terror-Listed Illegal Immigrants Released Into US

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas is facing renewed pressure to explain the circumstances of inadmissible aliens on the terrorist watchlist being released into the United States rather than being held in custody until deportation.

A group of Homeland Security Republicans expressed serious concern in an April 3 letter to Mr. Mayorkas about unanswered questions regarding DHS’s current practices in processing and releasing known or suspected terrorists into the United States.

“We are now facing a consistent stream of cases highlighted in the news of aliens allegedly on the terrorists watchlist either being apprehended at the border or discovered in the interior,” they wrote.

Their concern comes as U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) data show that there’s been a whopping 3,000-plus percent increase (comparing former President Donald Trump’s term and that of President Joe Biden’s so far) in the number of people on the FBI’s terror watchlist caught trying to enter the country illegally.

The lawmakers—including House Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Mark Green (R-Tenn.) and Subcommittee on Counterterrorism, Law Enforcement, and Intelligence Chairman August Pfluger (R-Texas)—expressed particular concern about the number of terrorist gotaways.

The number of terrorist gotaways could be alarmingly high if it tracks with the 3,000-plus percent rise in the number of apprehended illegal immigrants on the terror watchlist between the Trump and Biden presidencies.

Keep reading

U.S. History of Using ISIS

Back in 2015, the Guardian published a fascinating report titled Now the truth emerges: how the US fuelled the rise of Isis in Syria and Iraq, which detailed how U.S. and British intelligence were supporting Islamic jihadist rebel groups in Syria with the objective of overthrowing the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The report included a link to a leaked 2012 Department of Defense document about U.S. support for these rebel groups in Syria, including ISIS. This report stuck with me, and I was a reminded of it a couple of years later when Assad was accused in April 2017 of using chemical weapons against Syrian civilians.Buy New $47.97 ($0.53 / Count)(as of 02:32 UTC – Details)

Notably, this chemical weapons attack just happened to occur the day after Secretary of State Rex Tillerson publicly announced that regime change in Syria was no longer official U.S. policy. In other words—we were told—the day after the U.S. announced it was getting off Assad’s case, he committed an atrocity (of zero military value) that would guarantee that the U.S. recommit itself to getting rid of him.

Though most of the legacy press endorsed the assertion that Assad’s forces were behind the attack, a few discerning reporters noted that it could have easily been carried about by one of the Islamic jihadist groups operating in the region to make the Trump administration rethink its abandonment of its regime change objective. Sure enough, a couple of days after the chemical attack, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson announced that he was reconsidering his announcement the week before.

Now comes the news of a major terrorist attack on the Crocus City Hall in Moscow that has left hundreds dead and injured. The U.S. government claims the attack was carried out by ISIS-K, which has reportedly taken responsibility for it. However, Kremlin officials have alleged that some of the gunmen were trying to escape into Ukraine, utilizing a ‘window’ of support from across the border.

Buy New $63.95 ($5.95 / Ounce)(as of 11:17 UTC – Details)The U.S. government just issued a statement condemning the terrorist attack in Moscow, but this reminds me of U.S. government doublespeak about ISIS back in the 2012-2017 period—that is, publicly condemning ISIS while secretly supporting it in Syria.

My concern now is that the attack on the Moscow theater was—like the Re’im music festival massacre in Israel last October—designed to provoke the absolute maximum violent response.

Keep reading

Niger Finds Itself Trapped in America’s Foreign Policy Roach Motel

Does even one American in hundred, make that one in a thousand, possibly one in a million, feel we must be involved militarily in Niger? I doubt it. But the U.S. military, from Commander In Chief Joe Biden on down, certainly do. He’s got 1,000 troops in Niger. The new Niger government wants them out.

US presence in Niger goes back to 2013. Authorized by President Obama, it has continued under both Trump and Biden. In 2015, 4 US troops were killed in an ambush. It made no dent in Obama’s foreign policy acquiescing in every cockamamie intervention the military demands.

Last July, a military group, the National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP), seized power from a US friendly government. The new sheriff in town is demanding the US leave. When the US visited Niger recently to plead Uncle Sam’s case, they insulted Niger’s sovereignty by telling the CNSP to stop cozying up to Russia and Iran. The CNSP’s response? “Niger regrets the intention of the American delegation to deny the sovereign Nigerien people the right to choose their partners and types of partnerships capable of truly helping them fight against terrorism.”

Keep reading

Why Torture Is A Failed Policy And Practice

Judge Napolitano was the inspiration for doing this post. He wrote an excellent piece in the Daily Wire last week commenting on the apparent collapse of the criminal case against Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the 9-11 attacks. The Judge wrote:

As the pre-trial hearings in the case of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and others who are charged with masterminding the 9/11 attacks proceed at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base in Cuba, the government continues to stumble with its own witnesses. In hearings last week, government lawyers tried to demonstrate that statements the defendants made to CIA and FBI agents were voluntary.

When the government’s principal torturer, a now-retired psychologist, had difficulty recalling that during a torture session he threatened one of his victims by offering to slit the throat of the victim’s young son and that he had recounted that threat under oath in previous testimony, it became apparent to all in the courtroom and to those of us who monitor these awful proceedings that the government was encountering a strange and unexpected difficulty in defending the behavior of its torturers.

The Judge’s judicial instincts are spot on. But there is much more to this story. The American public, and much of the world, have been bamboozled into believing that torture is an effective interrogation technique. It is not. It is counter productive.

Hollywood and novelists have played a key role in my view of popularizing torture as a necessary evil. The TV show, 24, featuring Kiefer Sutherland as Jack Bauer, routinely relied to torture to get info out of terrorists. Hell, even Supreme Court Justice Scalia, when he was alive, believed Jack Bauer had the right to torture:

“Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. … He saved hundreds of thousands of lives,” Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent’s rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.
“Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?” Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. “Say that criminal law is against him? ‘You have the right to a jury trial?’ Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don’t think so.

“So the question is really whether we believe in these absolutes. And ought we believe in these absolutes.”

Then there is the late Vince Flynn. As you can see from the image posted at the top of this piece, I was friends with Vince — at least until he because famous — and helped him with his first five books. His views on torture are his own. I suggested otherwise, but he explains his thinking in this interview with Robert Bidinotto:

Flynn: Yes. Here’s where I sit. It’s real simple. If al Qaeda signed the Geneva Convention, put on a uniform, stuck their flag in the ground, and said, “Let’s meet on the battlefield,” I would say: “Absolutely. Torture—you can’t do it. Period. End of discussion.” But we have an enemy that won’t put on a uniform, has not signed the Geneva Convention, hides behind men, women, and children, and then attacks men, women, and children—civilians.

I think it’s a joke that we are even having this debate, as a nation. I think that torture should take place only for high-value targets where we know they are withholding information that could help us bust up cells, financing, organization, and possible operations.

The problem is that because we are a civilized society, and because we’ve lost our mooring—we’ve lost our attachment to our Judeo-Christian beliefs—we’ve gone off on this little safari with PC. We think that we have to say things so that people will think, “He’s smart, he’s compassionate, he cares, he’s got a good heart.” The reality is that if you were to ask the American people, “When Mitch Rapp starts to torture some bad guy who knows where the nuke is, are you sitting there in the privacy of your home crying and saying, ‘Please stop torturing this guy’? Or are you saying, ‘Get him, Mitch! Get the information out of him!’”

Vince violated the Gannon Rule. Dick Gannon was my boss at State CT. He was a retired Marine Colonel and Vietnam Combat vet. He was fond of saying, “If it feels really good it is probably wrong.” What I tried to tell Vince was no matter how emotionally satisfying torturing a bad guy is for the purpose of entertaining an audience, in the real world it is counter productive and fails to produce reliable intelligence.

Unfortunately, most of the world labors under the false belief fostered by the Jack Bauers and Vince Flynns that the CIA is skilled and practiced in the art of torture. That is a lie. The opposite is true. The CIA training program for case officers offered zero instruction in torture or interrogation. The primary mission of a CIA operations officer is to recruit foreigners to spy for us — i.e., to commit treason against their own country. This process is a seduction, not coercion. If you have convinced someone to betray their country or their cause it better not be based on anger at you for inflicting pain or threatening to harm loved ones. That is a recipe for getting screwed over by your recruited source.

Keep reading

US Drone Strike in Somalia May Have Killed Two Cuban Doctors

Al-Shabaab has said a February 15 US drone strike in southern Somalia that targeted the group killed two Cuban doctors who were being held hostage, an allegation Cuba is trying to confirm.

US Africa Command did not announce the strike but released a statement after the allegations about the two Cubans surfaced, saying it was assessing the strike. “The command will continue to assess the results of this operation and will provide additional information as available,” said AFRICOM spokeswoman Lennea Montandon.

The doctors, Dr. Landy Rodriguez Hernandez and Dr. Assel Herrera Correa, were kidnapped by al-Shabaab in Kenya back in 2019. Cuba’s Minister of Public Health José Ángel Portal Miranda said the Cuban government is in contact with their families and is looking to verify the claim.

The US frequently launches drone strikes against al-Shabaab in Somalia, but the war gets very little media coverage, and US operations are shrouded in secrecy. AFRICOM is also known for undercounting civilian casualties.

Earlier in the month, AFRICOM reported a drone strike that occurred on February 9 that it claims killed two al-Shabaab fighters. The command said the strike was launched in support of the US-backed Mogadishu-based government, which has been fighting a ground campaign against al-Shabaab.

The US is stepping up military aid for the Somali government and recently signed a deal to build five new military bases for the Danab Brigade, a special unit of the Somali army that’s armed and trained by the US. According to Task & Purpose, the project will cost over $100 million.

The US military hypes the threat of al-Shabaab due to its size and al-Qaeda affiliation, but it’s widely believed the group does not have ambitions outside of Somalia.

Keep reading

UK steps up war on whistleblower journalism with new National Security Act

Under a repressive new act, British nationals could face prison for undermining London’s national security line. Intended to destroy WikiLeaks and others exposing war crimes, the law is a direct threat to critical national security journalism.

It was the afternoon of May 17 2023 and I had just arrived at London’s Luton Airport. I was on my way to the city of my birth to visit my family. Before landing, the pilot instructed all passengers to have their passports ready for inspection immediately upon disembarking the plane. Just then, I noticed a six-strong squad of stone-faced plainclothes British counter-terror officers waited on the tarmac, intensely studying the identification documents of all travelers.

As soon as the cops identified me, I was ordered to accompany them into the airport terminal without explanation. There, I was introduced to two officials whose names I could not learn, who subsequently referred to each other using nondescript callsigns. I was invited to be digitally strip searched, and subjected to an interrogation in which I had no right to silence, no right to refuse to answer questions, and no right to withhold pin numbers for my digital devices or sim cards. If I asserted any rights to privacy, I faced arrest and up to 48 hours in police custody. 

I chose to comply. And so it was that over the next five hours, I sat with a couple of anonymous counter-terror cops in an airless, windowless, excruciatingly hot back room. They fingerprinted me, took invasive DNA swabs, and probed every conceivable aspect of my private and professional life, friend and family connections, and educational background. They wanted to know why I write, say and think the things I do, the specifics of how I’m paid for my investigative journalism, and to which bank account.

Keep reading

How Australian undercover police ‘fed’ an autistic 13-year-old’s fixation with Islamic State

Counter-terrorism police encouraged an autistic 13-year-old boy in his fixation on Islamic State in an undercover operation after his parents sought help from the authorities.

The boy, given the pseudonym Thomas Carrick, was later charged with terror offences after an undercover officer “fed his fixation” and “doomed” the rehabilitation efforts Thomas and his parents had engaged in, a Victorian children’s court magistrate found.

Thomas spent three months in custody before he was granted bail in October 2022, after an earlier bail was revoked because he failed to comply with conditions.

Thomas, an NDIS recipient with an IQ of 71, was first reported to police by Victoria’s Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) and then by his parents because of his fixation with Islamic State, which included him accessing extremist material online and making threats to other students.

On 17 April 2021, his parents went to a police station and asked for help because Thomas was watching Islamic State-related videos on his computer and had asked his mother to buy bomb-making ingredients such as sulphur and acetone.

Thomas was investigated and charged with two terror offences by the Joint Counter Terrorism Team (JCTT), which comprises Australian federal police, Victoria police and Asio members.

The court granted a permanent stay on the charges in October last year, but a copy of the decision has only recently been published.

“The community would not expect law enforcement officers to encourage a 13-14 year old child towards racial hatred, distrust of police and violent extremism, encouraging the child’s fixation on ISIS,” magistrate Lesley Fleming said in the decision.

“The community would not expect law enforcement to use the guise of a rehabilitation service to entice the parents of a troubled child to engage in a process that results in potential harm to the child.

“The conduct engaged in by the JCTT and the AFP falls so profoundly short of the minimum standards expected of law enforcement offices [sic] that to refuse this [stay] application would be to condone and encourage further instances of such conduct.”

Fleming found the JCTT also deliberately delayed charging Thomas with offences until after he turned 14, as it made it harder for him to use the defence of doli incapax, which refers to the concept that a child is not criminally responsible for their actions.

Police also inappropriately searched Thomas’s property shortly before he was charged, Fleming found.

“There was a deliberate, invasive and totally inappropriate search of [Thomas’s] bedroom without lawful excuse.

Keep reading